For Admissions Contact @ 9133527733

Menu

Leave a Comment / By /

Topic – Judicial independence and the Indian Constitution

Source: The Hindu

Q1. The recent reversal by the Supreme Court Collegium in the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan has reignited debates about judicial independence and executive influence in judicial appointments. Examine. (15 marks, 250 words)

IntroductionThe principle of judicial independence is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that judges remain free from external pressures — political, executive, or otherwise. The Supreme Court Collegium system, evolved through the Second and Third Judges’ Cases, was designed to safeguard this autonomy by vesting the power of judicial appointments and transfers primarily within the judiciary itself. However, the recent reversal of Justice Atul Sreedharan’s transfer — reportedly in deference to government requests — has reignited concerns over whether the Executive is subtly reasserting influence in judicial matters.
Body
  • The Case of Justice Atul Sreedharan
  • Historical Parallels: Recurring Executive Resistance
  • Constitutional and Institutional Framework
  • Implications: Independence vs. Accountability
  • The Way Forward: Reforms for Transparency and Independence
ConclusionThe Justice Sreedharan episode is emblematic of the delicate equilibrium between judicial independence and executive accountability. While the Collegium system was conceived as a shield against political interference, its present functioning shows vulnerabilities — particularly in opacity and susceptibility to executive persuasion. Ensuring independence, therefore, requires not isolation but transparent institutional processes that can withstand political pressure while retaining public confidence. True judicial independence, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, must be both structural and ethical, reaffirming that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be free from influence.
UPSC SyllabusSupreme Court Collegium system
Why was this question asked?Q. “Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy.” Comment. (2023)
IntroductionThe principle of judicial independence is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that judges remain free from external pressures — political, executive, or otherwise. The Supreme Court Collegium system, evolved through the Second and Third Judges’ Cases, was designed to safeguard this autonomy by vesting the power of judicial appointments and transfers primarily within the judiciary itself. However, the recent reversal of Justice Atul Sreedharan’s transfer — reportedly in deference to government requests — has reignited concerns over whether the Executive is subtly reasserting influence in judicial matters.
BodyThe Case of Justice Atul Sreedharan

 

  • Justice Atul Sreedharan, a Madhya Pradesh High Court Judge, was initially recommended for transfer to Chhattisgarh High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium in August 2025.
  • In October 2025, the Collegium revised its recommendation, transferring him instead to the Allahabad High Court, aligning with the Union Government’s reconsideration request.
  • This move was unusual — the Collegium’s resolution offered no reasoning for the change, despite earlier asserting that Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to Chhattisgarh was in the “public interest.”
  • Critics argue that the change effectively removed him from the Chhattisgarh High Court Collegium, thereby limiting his institutional role in judicial selections.

Historical Parallels: Recurring Executive Resistance

  • Justice Akil Kureshi (2018): The Centre objected to his appointment as Madhya Pradesh High Court Chief Justice after his rulings in Gujarat encounter cases. The Collegium eventually transferred him to Tripura, a smaller High Court — widely seen as a compromise.
  • Justice S. Muralidhar (2022–23): The Collegium’s recommendation to shift him to Madras High Court was silently stalled by the government until his retirement approached, forcing the judiciary to recall its own decision.
  • These precedents show a pattern of executive delay, resistance, and selective acceptance, indicating a soft encroachment on judicial independence through procedural mechanisms rather than outright confrontation.

Constitutional and Institutional Framework

  • Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution govern judicial appointments and transfers, with the President (i.e., the Executive) acting on the advice of the Collegium.
  • The Second Judges’ Case (1993) and Third Judges’ Case (1998) established that the Collegium’s recommendation is binding, and if reiterated, the government must comply.
  • Yet, the absence of transparency in Collegium resolutions, coupled with the government’s ability to seek repeated “reconsiderations,” creates a gray zone that weakens the spirit of judicial autonomy.
  • The Collegium’s “bare-bones” October 14, 2025 resolution, without explanation, further raises questions about internal accountability within the judiciary itself.

Implications: Independence vs. Accountability

  • Erosion of Institutional Credibility: Frequent accommodation of executive preferences risks public perception that the judiciary is yielding to political influence.
  • Chilling Effect on Judicial Courage: Judges known for bold or critical rulings may face subtle transfer pressures, discouraging judicial activism.
  • Opacity and Lack of Reason-Giving: The Collegium’s closed-door functioning undermines both transparency and public trust in judicial decision-making.
  • Absence of Legislative Oversight: Parliament remains a spectator, as judicial transfers and appointments operate outside formal statutory regulation.

The Way Forward: Reforms for Transparency and Independence

  • Institutionalize the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): Finalize and publish a detailed MoP that defines timelines, reasons for reconsiderations, and criteria for transfers.
  • Collegium Transparency Charter: Mandate reasoned resolutions and periodic public disclosures to strengthen accountability.
  • National Judicial Appointments Commission (Reformed): Revisit the concept with constitutional safeguards against executive dominance.
  • Judicial Oversight Mechanism: Create an independent secretariat to support data-driven and merit-based recommendations.
  • Public Scrutiny and Civil Society Vigilance: Encourage watchdog NGOs like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms to monitor judicial processes without undermining institutional dignity.
ConclusionThe Justice Sreedharan episode is emblematic of the delicate equilibrium between judicial independence and executive accountability. While the Collegium system was conceived as a shield against political interference, its present functioning shows vulnerabilities — particularly in opacity and susceptibility to executive persuasion. Ensuring independence, therefore, requires not isolation but transparent institutional processes that can withstand political pressure while retaining public confidence. True judicial independence, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, must be both structural and ethical, reaffirming that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be free from influence.

Topic – India’s healthcare regulation

Source: The Hindu

Q 2. The recent controversy over Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) has exposed deeper flaws in India’s healthcare regulation, ethical marketing practices, and public health awareness. Discuss how this episode reflects broader challenges in ensuring medical integrity and consumer protection within India’s health system. (15 marks, 250 words)

IntroductionThe Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS), recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), is a scientifically balanced formulation of salts, glucose, and electrolytes used to prevent dehydration caused by diarrhoeal diseases. Long celebrated as one of the simplest and most life-saving medical inventions, ORS became the subject of a major national controversy in 2025 when the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) banned non-conforming sugary beverages from using the “ORS” label. The episode, not only exposed rampant misuse of medical terminology but also highlighted India’s systemic weaknesses in health regulation and public accountability.
Body
  • The ORS Controversy
  • The Whistleblower and Regulatory Struggle
  • Reflections on India’s Health Regulation and Governance Gaps
  • Ethical and Consumer Dimensions
  • Lessons and Policy Imperatives for the Future
ConclusionThe ORS controversy is not an isolated incident but a mirror reflecting India’s broader struggle to balance commerce, ethics, and health integrity. It exposes how a product meant to save lives was transformed into a tool of profit, revealing gaps in both regulation and public education. The FSSAI’s 2025 ruling marks a positive corrective step, but sustainable reform demands continuous vigilance, transparent governance, and empowered consumers. Ultimately, the episode reaffirms that medical truth and ethical responsibility must never be compromised at the altar of market convenience.
UPSC SyllabusIndia’s Public healthcare
Why was this question asked?Q. Public health system has limitations in providing universal health coverage. Do you think that the private sector could help in bridging the gap? What other viable alternatives would you suggest? (2015)
IntroductionThe Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS), recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), is a scientifically balanced formulation of salts, glucose, and electrolytes used to prevent dehydration caused by diarrhoeal diseases. Long celebrated as one of the simplest and most life-saving medical inventions, ORS became the subject of a major national controversy in 2025 when the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) banned non-conforming sugary beverages from using the “ORS” label. The episode, not only exposed rampant misuse of medical terminology but also highlighted India’s systemic weaknesses in health regulation and public accountability.
BodyThe ORS Controversy

 

  • The core issue involved several beverage manufacturers marketing sugar-based drinks under the “ORS” label despite not meeting WHO’s composition standards.
  • WHO’s standard ORS has a total osmolarity of 245 mOsm/L with precise electrolyte balance (2.6 g sodium chloride, 1.5 g potassium chloride, 2.9 g sodium citrate, and 13.5 g glucose per litre).
  • However, many market variants contained up to 120 g of sugar per litre and negligible electrolytes — turning a therapeutic formulation into a commercial soft drink.
  • This not only deceived consumers but posed serious health risks to children and patients with dehydration, diabetes, or diarrhoea.

The Whistleblower and Regulatory Struggle

  • Dr. Sivaranjani Santosh, disturbed by misleading products, began her campaign in 2017, writing to CDSCO, FSSAI, and the Ministry of Health.
  • While FSSAI initially prohibited misuse of the label in 2022, the order was diluted within months, allowing disclaimers — a move that undermined enforcement.
  • Persistent activism, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and support from professional bodies like the Endocrine Society of India and the Women Paediatricians Forum kept the issue alive.
  • Her eight-year battle led to FSSAI’s October 15, 2025 directive, which permanently banned the use of “ORS” for any non-medical beverage.

Reflections on India’s Health Regulation and Governance Gaps

  • The episode underscores how weak inter-agency coordination between FSSAI and CDSCO allows health-related consumer goods to slip through regulatory cracks.
  • Ambiguous labelling rules and industry lobbying often dilute public safety measures.
  • The absence of independent scientific audits and poor enforcement at retail and advertising levels allows pseudomedical claims to thrive.
  • Such lapses erode public trust in healthcare institutions and highlight the tension between commercial interests and ethical responsibility.

Ethical and Consumer Dimensions

  • The ORS misuse is a violation of medical ethics, as life-saving terms were used to exploit consumer trust for profit.
  • The controversy reveals a moral blind spot in corporate responsibility, where marketing overrides scientific accuracy.
  • Low health literacy among consumers — especially in rural areas — compounds vulnerability to misinformation.
  • It also exposes the need for ethical advertising norms in healthcare, similar to those enforced for tobacco and infant food.

Lessons and Policy Imperatives for the Future

  • Strengthen regulatory convergence between FSSAI, CDSCO, and state-level drug controllers to ensure unified oversight.
  • Introduce stricter penalties and criminal liability for misleading medical branding.
  • Launch public health campaigns to improve awareness of therapeutic products and medical standards.
  • Encourage citizen-led vigilance and professional whistleblower protection to promote accountability.
  • Ensure evidence-based policymaking, where commercial freedoms are balanced against ethical and health imperatives.
ConclusionThe ORS controversy is not an isolated incident but a mirror reflecting India’s broader struggle to balance commerce, ethics, and health integrity. It exposes how a product meant to save lives was transformed into a tool of profit, revealing gaps in both regulation and public education. The FSSAI’s 2025 ruling marks a positive corrective step, but sustainable reform demands continuous vigilance, transparent governance, and empowered consumers. Ultimately, the episode reaffirms that medical truth and ethical responsibility must never be compromised at the altar of market convenience.
UPSC CARE Mains Practice 27th October 2025
UPSC CARE Mains Practice 23rd october 2025
Scroll to Top